Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court found that attorney Benjamin Stuart Friedman committed professional misconduct in connection with multiple divorce, dissolution, custody, and related client matters. The misconduct included neglect, misrepresentation, mishandling and failure to refund client funds, inadequate recordkeeping, and practicing law while suspended for failure to register. The court imposed a two-year suspension, with the final six months stayed subject to conditions including continued treatment, restitution, and no further misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent violated the charged Ohio disciplinary rules through neglect of client matters, dishonesty and misrepresentation, improper fee practices, failure to return unearned fees and client funds, trust-account violations, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- Whether respondent violated Ohio's attorney-registration rules by practicing law while his license was suspended.
- What sanction was appropriate for respondent's multiple disciplinary violations in light of the aggravating and mitigating factors.
Holdings
- Respondent violated all of the disciplinary provisions found by the board, including rules prohibiting dishonesty, conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice, excessive fees, failure to return unearned fees or client funds, neglect of entrusted matters, trust-account violations, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and unauthorized practice during suspension.
- A two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the final six months stayed on specified conditions, was the appropriate sanction.
Key quotations
“After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, we agree with the parties and the board that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the final six months of that suspension stayed on conditions.” (¶ 60)
“A two-year suspension with the final six months stayed will appropriately protect the public, provided that respondent continues his daily efforts at maintaining sobriety.” (¶ 61)
Factual background
Respondent represented multiple clients in custody, divorce, dissolution, and related matters, but repeatedly neglected their cases, failed to communicate, made false statements about filings and refunds, failed to return unearned fees promptly, mishandled client funds, and failed to provide required accountings. In one matter, he incorrectly prepared a QDRO, causing financial consequences to the client. Respondent also practiced law while his license was summarily suspended for failing to comply with attorney-registration requirements.
Procedural history
Relator filed an amended disciplinary complaint on April 21, 2006. After a September 2006 hearing, the panel issued findings, conclusions, and a recommended sanction, which the board adopted. Respondent filed no objections, and the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed and adopted the board's findings and recommended sanction.